Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Simplify TLP and RTO into Probe Timeout (#2114)

[Nick Banks <[e-mail]>]

nibanks commented on this pull request.

In general, I like the simplification here. It would be interesting to see the results of an A/B test before and after these changes.

> @@ -361,8 +361,7 @@ increases loss detection delay.
 
 Timeout loss detection recovers from losses that cannot be handled by
 ack-based loss detection.  It uses a single timer which switches between
-a crypto retransmission timer, a Tail Loss Probe timer and Retransmission
-Timeout mechanisms.
+a crypto retransmission timer and a Probe timer.

You don't capitalize `Probe` in other places. It looks out of place here.

> @@ -726,10 +700,9 @@ Pseudocode for OnAckReceived and UpdateRtt follow:
       // RTO was spurious. Otherwise, inform congestion control.
       if (rto_count > 0 &&
             smallest_newly_acked > largest_sent_before_rto):

As well as `rto_count`

> @@ -812,17 +785,11 @@ Pseudocode for SetLossDetectionTimer follows:
       loss_detection_timer.set(loss_time)
       return
 
-    // RTO or TLP timer
-    // Calculate RTO duration
+    // PTO timer. Calculate PTO duration

Nit: I feel like having either `PTO timer` or `Calculate PTO duration` would be cleaner. Having both seems a bit overdone.

>  
-## Retransmission Timeout
+A PTO expiration is classified as spurious or valid when an ACK frame is
+received that newly acknowledges packets in flight, see {{pto-loss}}.  On a
+valid PTO, the congestion window MUST be reduced to the minimum congestion
+window and slow start is re-entered.

Just to confirm my understanding, this is a difference from TLP before, right? Before this change, if TLP triggered and you sent a probe packet that elicited an ACK for just that packet, you wouldn't go back into slow start, but now an ACK for only the first probe packet would trigger slow start. Correct?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2114#pullrequestreview-183909793